Featured Where is God's preserved word?

And you base this on?

Divine proclamation?
Opinion?
Somebody else's research?
A careful comparison with other texts?

 

Hi Jordan,

Which edition of the Masoretic Text do you think is the "perfect preserved" word of God? There are many of them. One of Kittel's editions? Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia? I'm glad to see you use the words "faithful translation" in regard to the KJV. I too believe that the KJV is a faithful translation of the most accurate humanly-constructed composites of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures available in that time.

But you must already know that the Masoretic Text is only one branch of the textual tradition that was active in Jesus' day, and that it was imperfect before it began being preserved by the Masoretes. Jesus himself quotes from a non-Masoretic-type manuscript in Luke 4:18. I've commented on this problematic passage here. The Masoretes conducted a fairly successful campaign over the centuries to wipe out all textual streams that differed from their standardized text, but even in particulars they were unsuccessful, since traditional readings of various locales were allowed to stand in the margin of many manuscripts. In addition, by comparing parallel passages in the OT we can see where the Masoretic tradition (and even other traditions) became corrupted, and then either attempt to repair it based on other evidence that has been handed down to us or choose to leave it unrepaired (and think up cockamamie explanations how both but contradictory facts of the same event are infallible). Sometimes also the NT can help, as in the example from Luke 4:18 above.

As for the NT, I think that better composite Greek texts are available than those of, e.g., Erasmus, the Complutensian, Estienne, Bèze, or the Elzevirs. My studies have led me to think that the Robinson-Pierpont The Greek New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform is the best consensus text available today. I have devoted a little time to a website discussing the differences between this edition and the current standard GNT, the Nestle-Aland/UBS Greek New Testament: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. You may see the reasons for my preferred readings of the Greek New Testament there. As for translations of this edition, there is not yet one available by a major publisher, although the World English Bible (WEB) is an attempt to render this edition faithfully.

I still think that you are barking up the wrong tree, asking questions that neither Jesus nor the apostles would have asked, subjecting the word of God to judgments that are not beneficial to building up the church. And you fail to mention even a single leader of the church during its first millennia who, from all that we know, used a "complete Bible in one place," the text of which resembles your "perfectly preserved" one exactly. This in itself casts your endeavor and the microscopic nature of your criticisms into doubt. Frankly, I think that this issue, while important, is not as important as you and your more passionate KJV-only friends make it out to be.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

 

I might also add that, in general, the problem is not that all copyists have preserved 97 or 98 percent of God's word (although some of them did), it's that, collectively, they have preserved 102 or 103 percent of it. Thus the need for textual criticism, to use God's gifts (just as Erasmus, Estienne, Bèze, the Elzevirs did) to arrive as close to 100 percent as possible. Do you think that this is wrong for us, as responsible Christians who love and cherish the word of God, to do?

 

And this, my friends, is the perfect reply.

I was going to say something along these lines. One of the things I've encountered all too often in KJVO discussions is an absolute unawareness of OT textual criticism.

 

Reported..............

 

Mike the reporter, despite having "put me on ignore" is back to his old ways.
Have you nothing to contribute to this thread?...I thought not.

 

" they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

 

And "you and your more passionate KJO friends" isn't an attempt to belittle someone? But pointing out the length of a post is somehow a personal attack?

I get that you can't take sides on a versions debate, as moderator. But the attacks on those who defend the AV, in any way, by decietfully setting up the windmill strawman "KJO", and then pummeling him with Quixote's javelin, is a little overboard here. If personal attacks are banned, then ban the use of the phrases "KJVO" or "KJO", please. They are being used as slander, and are meant personally against individual believers on this board.

 

wasn't this in context of prayer?

 

I was merely using the term KJV Only in its most widely known sense, namely, those who say that the KJV is the only valid translation. The term is broken down into 5 different categories even right here on the Baptistboard: Definitions of KJV Only

My intention in using the expression "more passionate KJV-only friends" was to acknowledge Jordan's apparent less hyper stance on the issue, since he said even in this thread:

I even asked Jordan if this meant that he was KJV-preferred, the #1 category in the KJV Only "sticky" thread I linked to above.

Had my intention been derogatory, I should have used terms like "KJVO goons," "KJV only fanatics," "KJV only loonies," etc., but my intention was more sincere. You, however, obviously have higher combative aspirations for this thread, evidenced by every post you've made here. In fact, you've contributed little so far besides remarks many would consider trolling.

Perhaps you'd like to answer a sincere question: Do you believe that any edition of the Bible in English is letter perfect, and if so, what was the year and publisher of said edition? If you refuse to answer this question, just as Jordan has refused to answer it, then I will assume that the only ones "playing games" (Jordan's words, post #41) are you, intending to trap others with questions that you yourselves are unwilling to answer, such as the one in the first line of the OP:

So prove me wrong and answer my question. If you do I should be glad to carry on a polite conversation with you.

 

EASY!
The men who wrote the originals were directly inspired by God, or He spoke to them directly, while translators have not had that direct inspiration. The proof is that there are goofs and booboos in virtually every Bible translation. (However, most are minor.)

"We" are basing your non-belief on opinion and guesswork, with no FACT involved.

Actually, they've moved on from W&H a good bit, with the discoveries of many more mss. & fragments thereof.

And a certain "one-Version-Only" myth is as corrupt a "tree" as any.

Have you THRORUGHLY read any definitive boox about the lives of W & H?, Or, do you merely quote excerpts which fit your agenda?

He was speaking of hades.

You have no room to talk of modern texts following W&H when YOU cite from one of the three founding boox of the KJVO myth, Which Bible? by Dr. D. O. Fuller! That book copies the plagiarism of J. J. Ray from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST Dr. Ben Wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated. Fuller not only Koppie-Katted, but he was careful to not mention Wilkinson's CULT AFFILIATION. So, why should we believe Fuller at all?

I see you have a prob with Westcott & Hort, both long-dead. I suggest you study this site...
http://www.westcotthort.com/quotes.html

...and come back & tell us this stuff again. Your reliance upon Dr. Fuller's boog speax VOLUMES about your agenda! Remember, a certain Satanic and false myth was started by an "author" called J. J. Ray plagiarizing from a CULT OFFICIAL'S goof-filled book, that book being Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. Ben Wilkinson. Then, in his turn, Dr. Fuller copied much of Ray's work in his mown book, Which Bible? Both Ray and Fuller used the power of modern media to hawk their boox, and a new false doctrine was born.

You cannot deny those above FACTS about the birth of a certain "One-Version-Only" myth. But I see you DID NOT answer MY question aster I answered yours honestly and truthfully.

But I know the reason you didn't answer...the CORRECT answer is...THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE SUPPORTING THE KJVO MYTH! But, like all other KJVOs, you CANNOT bring yourself to admit that fact, so you keep on making excuses to justufy your myth in your own mind, while knowing deep inside that myth is phony as a Chevy F-150.

 

First, we have pointed out several goofs and booboos in the KJV, so it's NOT perfect. Second, we believe GOD is behind EVERY valid Bible translation, old or new. Third, THICH TR EDITION is the "official" one? it's only been revised some thirty times. Even Dean Burgon wrote it could still stand a thorough revision.

 

The "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie' has been discussed ad nauseam here and found to be FALSE. It is taken DIRECTLY FROM DR. WILKINSON'S BOOK, and is more proof of the dependence of KJVOs upon that CULT OFFICIAL'S book.

 

MMRRPP! WRONG!

The acronym "KJVO" stands for "King James Version Onlyists" and is pretty well universally used. It's not meant as a slur at all, no more than is "IFB" for "Independent Fundamentalist Baptists".

 

That late 1800's edition was not available for use by the makers of the KJV. They used or consulted several textually varying editions of the Greek NT text. The makers of the KJV did not use one text found in one place. The KJV translators made use of and consulted textually different sources.

The process for the making of the KJV does not fall in line with your argument concerning what is necessary for preservation of the Scriptures.

Scrivener's edition was made to match the KJV, and not made to match the majority readings of the Byzantine Greek NT manuscripts.

Are you aware of the fact that the KJV does not match 100% faithfully the text of any one edition of the Hebrew Masoretic text?

For example, the 1524-1525 Bomberg edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text edited by Jacob ben Chayim that KJV-only authors assert was the basis for the KJV's Old Testament did not have three whole verse [Joshua 21:36-37, Nehemiah 7:68] that are found in the KJV.

There are places where the makers of the KJV followed the marginal reading of the Masoretic Text instead of the actual reading in the text.

 

Hi Jordan,

I'm still trying to figure out your view. Will you please help me out by answering the questions directly?

Which of Scrivener's several GNTs is the one published by the Trinitarian Bible Society? (publisher and date)

Which edition of the Masoretic Text holds the same status for you as Scrivener's edition above? (publisher and date)

When and by which publisher were both of these editions first put "in any one place" (your words)?

As you said that "the King James Bible" is a faithful translation of the above texts (one of which [MT edition] we still don't know and the other of which is anachronistic since Scrivener's editions were published more than 250 years after the KJV translators' work), which edition (year and publisher) of the KJV is letter perfect?

Last, you said earlier:

This makes it seem like you are questioning whether any one edition of the KJV is letter perfect. Is that right?

Thanks for helping us understand your view better, and for being forthright enough to answer your own questions to the same degree that you expect from everyone else.

Sincerely,

Jonathan